Randall and Rollins

[JBlood]

Which so far is very good it sounds like.

I like your optimism, but so far it's very, very early....

 

[rodell330]

I don't think that both are going to be corners tho. I can honestly see Randall stealing snaps from Burnett...especially on passing downs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think that both are going to be corners tho. I can honestly see Randall stealing snaps from Burnett...especially on passing downs.

It's possible Capers will bring in Randall next to Clinton-Dix on obvious passing downs when he decides to play a Cover-2 scheme. That doesn't happen that often though and he will for sure not replace Burnett if there's even the slightest possibility of the opponent running the ball.

 

[Vrill]

Where does Sean Richardson fit in at now? We have ample depth now and players who are more multi faceted to play than Richardson. Is Richardson just a special teams guy now?

 

[Half Empty]

Well, he's the biggest CB/DB/S they've got. That might count for something.

 

[wist43]

You guys are kicking around some crazy ideas - subbing Burnett for Randall?? Can you say - "communication breakdown"??

That's a recipe for leaving receivers running free all over the secondary - something we've seen far too much of with Capers' defenses.

As for the rationale of "flexibility"... yeah, I'm okay with players being flexible - but in the 1st round I want a player that is going to be able to play a critical position, i.e. in the case of CB's, the perimeter - you can find slot corners all day long in the 3rd and 4th round.

That is my biggest ***** against the Randall pick in the 1st round. The fact that he is a very soft, very shaky tackler is just icing on the first argument.

I've said all along I like the Rollins pick, but he is definitely going to take time to develop.

So here we are, very close to winning a championship, with just a couple of big holes to fill, and what does TT do?? He drafts guys who aren't going to be able to provide much of an immediate impact; and neither one of them can fill the biggest need, i.e. outside.

TT did a decent job last year of addressing and filling 2 major needs, 1) Safety, and 2) OLB, Peppers... as a result, the defense was able to stabalize the sinking ship. All TT needed to do this year was fill a couple more holes on defense, and that would have gone a long way toward strengthening our defense enough to make a serious run at a championship.

We are not a better football team today than we were at the end of last year - and we weren't good enough last year. TT is a good GM, but he is very, very frustrating.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Where does Sean Richardson fit in at now? We have ample depth now and players who are more multi faceted to play than Richardson. Is Richardson just a special teams guy now?

Some mentioned he played some ILB in the nickel some times last year... Maybe he gets a few more looks there?

 

[rodell330]

You guys are kicking around some crazy ideas - subbing Burnett for Randall?? Can you say - "communication breakdown"??

That's a recipe for leaving receivers running free all over the secondary - something we've seen far too much of with Capers' defenses.

As for the rationale of "flexibility"... yeah, I'm okay with players being flexible - but in the 1st round I want a player that is going to be able to play a critical position, i.e. in the case of CB's, the perimeter - you can find slot corners all day long in the 3rd and 4th round.

That is my biggest ***** against the Randall pick in the 1st round. The fact that he is a very soft, very shaky tackler is just icing on the first argument.

I've said all along I like the Rollins pick, but he is definitely going to take time to develop.

So here we are, very close to winning a championship, with just a couple of big holes to fill, and what does TT do?? He drafts guys who aren't going to be able to provide much of an immediate impact; and neither one of them can fill the biggest need, i.e. outside.

TT did a decent job last year of addressing and filling 2 major needs, 1) Safety, and 2) OLB, Peppers... as a result, the defense was able to stabalize the sinking ship. All TT needed to do this year was fill a couple more holes on defense, and that would have gone a long way toward strengthening our defense enough to make a serious run at a championship.

We are not a better football team today than we were at the end of last year - and we weren't good enough last year. TT is a good GM, but he is very, very frustrating.

I think HHCD can handle the calls.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Where does Sean Richardson fit in at now? We have ample depth now and players who are more multi faceted to play than Richardson. Is Richardson just a special teams guy now?

Richardson will mostly play on special teams in 2015 and get some defensive snaps in either a big nickel or dime defense to add support in the run defense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind some of these posts suggesting that Burnett be taken out of the game. The guy is an above-average safety in the NFL. According to PFF (and I know some seem to hate that site but until someone can show me a better, objective site that ranks EVERY player, I'll use them) Burnett was the 31st best safety in 2010, 15th best in 2012, 2013 he was terrible (understandable since he was out of position trying to compensate for the guys he was playing with) and last year he was the 16th ranked safety. He's no superstar but it's a HUGE leap to think a rookie is going to take the place of the best player in the secondary.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Burnett looked great last year. I think we will have 2 CBs, 2 Safetys, and 3 in the image of Micah Hyde. Hyde, Randall, and Rollins.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind some of these posts suggesting that Burnett be taken out of the game. The guy is an above-average safety in the NFL. According to PFF (and I know some seem to hate that site but until someone can show me a better, objective site that ranks EVERY player, I'll use them) Burnett was the 31st best safety in 2010, 15th best in 2012, 2013 he was terrible (understandable since he was out of position trying to compensate for the guys he was playing with) and last year he was the 16th ranked safety. He's no superstar but it's a HUGE leap to think a rookie is going to take the place of the best player in the secondary.

Burnett was the highest ranked safety in run defense but wasn´t that great in coverage. Randall seems to be the best coverage safety coming out of college this season, so it would make sense to get him on the field when playing a Cover-2 scheme.

 

[rodell330]

Burnett was the highest ranked safety in run defense but wasn´t that great in coverage. Randall seems to be the best coverage safety coming out of college this season, so it would make sense to get him on the field when playing a Cover-2 scheme.

Beat me to it! This is why people (including me) are making that suggestion. No ones saying send him completely to the bench...just on obvious passing downs. In fact you could use some 3 safety coverages and let HHCD play center field.

 

[JBlood]

Burnett (tied for 10th) and Clinton-Dix (tied for 20th) were both high on the missed tackles list at Football Outsiders. Just one of the reasons our run defense was ranked 24th in the league. It has to improve for us to be a dominant football team, imo.

 

[rodell330]

Burnett (tied for 10th) and Clinton-Dix (tied for 20th) were both high on the missed tackles list at Football Outsiders. Just one of the reasons our run defense was ranked 24th in the league. It has to improve for us to be a dominant football team, imo.

Yes, HHCD misses waaaayyy to many tackles for my liking. He has to clean that up in year 2 or he will never be trusted to be a full time starter. I actually think Hyde is the better of the two simply because he can tackle.

 

[wist43]

Burnett (tied for 10th) and Clinton-Dix (tied for 20th) were both high on the missed tackles list at Football Outsiders. Just one of the reasons our run defense was ranked 24th in the league. It has to improve for us to be a dominant football team, imo.

You want to see missed tackles and weak tackling?? Just put on some tape of Randall... he's terrible - he'll fit right in.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Burnett (tied for 10th) and Clinton-Dix (tied for 20th) were both high on the missed tackles list at Football Outsiders. Just one of the reasons our run defense was ranked 24th in the league. It has to improve for us to be a dominant football team, imo.

I've been mostly alone in repeatedly carping about the Packers' bad tackling over the past few seasons. It's really been a team effort.

What should be the main takeaway from the FO study is that the Packers were 31st. in the league in worst "broken tackle" rate (BT rate)...broken tackles as a percent of solo tackles, a better measure than gross numbers since it determines misses per opportunity.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/broken-tackles-2014-defenses

This syncs with the eye test that the Packers were a poor tackling team, with misses coming in bunches over consecutive games. I believe you overstated the case in saying this must improve to be a "dominant football team"; it needs to improve markedly to get to "good defense" status.

As an FYI, note FO's definition of a "broken tackle" which includes "dragged" tackles in their 2014 data...where the ball carrier was tackled 5+ yards after contact. If the player is slow and the ball carrier just runs away from him, that does not count.

As for Burnett, FO charged him with 14 "broken tackles" (BTs), 10th. most in the league among all defensive players by their count, as you noted. However, note that Burnett's BT rate is 11.9%. I count 42 players with a worse rate...surely there are more who were worse since the list shows only the 52 guys with most gross misses.

FO charges Dix with a 14.8% BT. This syncs with the eye test that says Burnett is the better tackler. Among the 52 "worst" listed, I count 28 with a rate worse than Dix....again, there are probably more who worse, but fewer than with Burnett.

While these BT rates for Burnett and Dix are nothing to write home about, they're not as bad as you portrayed. The team number, as already noted, is dismal.

Interestingly, according to FO Hawk ranked 10th. best among LBs with a 4.3% BT rate, tied with Barrington. Mike Daniels scored very poorly with a 15.8% BT rate.

Getting back to Burnett and Dix, McGuin quotes some tougher scoring, which I presume comes from the Packers' staff (he's attributed some of his numbers in the past to the staff):

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...eport-card-defense-b99431313z1-289706171.html

He reports Burnett's missed tackle count as 14, same as FO. Dix, however was charged with 16 missed tackles, 4 more than FO came up with.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, HHCD misses waaaayyy to many tackles for my liking. He has to clean that up in year 2 or he will never be trusted to be a full time starter. I actually think Hyde is the better of the two simply because he can tackle.

By my eye test, Hyde was the best tackler in the Packer secondary last season. He's just not as fast as you'd like playing single-high safety.

 

[rodell330]

OVERALL the ENTIRE team needs to tackle better but I think Hyde is plenty fast quick and instinctive enough to play single hi safety. It's funny ppl complain about his speed but the guy returns kicks and Punts and even has taken a few back. I get tiered of hearing about how he's not "fast" enough. Put on the tape and he's got in game speed...which is fine by me. I'n fact, watch tape on Ed Reed...he wasn't a burner yet the guy was a int machine and he took plenty to the house! So speed isn't everything folks .

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Burnett (tied for 10th) and Clinton-Dix (tied for 20th) were both high on the missed tackles list at Football Outsiders. Just one of the reasons our run defense was ranked 24th in the league. It has to improve for us to be a dominant football team, imo.

Burnett was ranked 8th in tackling efficiency according to PFF while they have Clinton-Dix at 47th out of 63 safeties. This passes the eye test as I was mostly fine with Burnett but Clinton-Dix has to improve considerably.

Yes, HHCD misses waaaayyy to many tackles for my liking. He has to clean that up in year 2 or he will never be trusted to be a full time starter. I actually think Hyde is the better of the two simply because he can tackle.

Clinton-Dix was by far the best coverage safety on the team. While I prefer to play Hyde over him closer to the LOS it doesn´t make any sense to put anyone back as the single high safety.

By my eye test, Hyde was the best tackler in the Packer secondary last season. He's just not as fast as you'd like playing single-high safety.

According to PFF Burnett was a way better tackler than Hyde.

 

[JBlood]

We're more interested in stripping the ball than hitting the ball carrier; and it shows.

 

[JBlood]

And that's due to coaching emphasis.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We're more interested in stripping the ball than hitting the ball carrier; and it shows.

We aren´t very good in forcing fumbles though either ranking 20th in forced fumbles and 18th in fumbles recovered last season.

 

[JBlood]

Maybe Gunter becomes the surprise of camp: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/ladarius-gunter?id=2552574

 

[HardRightEdge]

OVERALL the ENTIRE team needs to tackle better but I think Hyde is plenty fast quick and instinctive enough to play single hi safety. It's funny ppl complain about his speed but the guy returns kicks and Punts and even has taken a few back. I get tiered of hearing about how he's not "fast" enough. Put on the tape and he's got in game speed...which is fine by me. I'n fact, watch tape on Ed Reed...he wasn't a burner yet the guy was a int machine and he took plenty to the house! So speed isn't everything folks .

I'm a big Hyde fan in the punt return game, as noted previously, where long speed is entirely overrated. The fastest defenders are the gunners who are out of the play if they don't get to the returner or force him to redirect early. Hyde does what the best returners do...he looks to break the first line of defense up the middle, which further neutralizes the gunners, and then lets his instincts take over.

As for safety speed, I'd not put a premium on it for teams that play cover-2 all day. I may be in the minority, but I believe long speed is a meaningful value-add at single-high safety. There's a lot of ground to cover and a lot a stake. Nobody's pre-snap read in infallible; teammates bite on play action; the blitz does not get home...recovery speed in the great wide open is not to be underestimated.

Prior to cover-2 schemes being popularized, single high free safeties were the rule and they were the fastest guys on the defense for the reasons cited. Play single-high today and the reasons to put a premium on long speed still apply.